My god.... why is so difficult for some people to accept that sometimes, occasionally, people have actually said exactly what they mean?
Oh, I believe it when I hear it - but this is obviously disingenuous trolling. I'm not sure what makes you so eager to take him at face value.
What it *does* have to do with is eliminating any bias in how it's PRESENTED.
How is it possible to totally eliminate bias?
To a fellow scientist, maybe.... but not to non-experts. For those people, the SCIENTIST speaks for the science. Thus the need to know bias.
This makes even less sense - you are arguing that people who can't understand the science should just blindly let their political biases influence them, rather than the evidence? Worse, what if their science has nothing to do with the personal political biases of the scientist? Many scientists present data and findings which are in opposition to their personal beliefs. How would judging them by their political beliefs make any sense? You are making the assumption that all scientists manipulate their findings to follow their political beliefs.
Guess which gender is statistically more prone to impulse purchases.
Men? It's just that men tend to impulse buy things like gadgets and alcohol. As for magazines, I think many women actually plan to buy those magazines every week, rather than it being an "impulse" as such.
I was very worried about AGW, but statements like, "neuremberg style trials for denialists" made me think something's not right. Add in character assasination, the way any "contrarian evidence" is assumed to be funded by oil companies, and debating tactics that throw the principle of falsifiability out of the window, made me distrust the whole damnded thing.
So, you used to believe in something that was supported by scientific evidence, until you made up a strawman and a stereotype, so now you don't believe in it anymore? Tell me - who is it that is calling for Nuremberg style trials?
The science needs to be free to operate carefully and efficiently, regardless of whether it's finding evidence for or against AGW. The business of science is to discover the truth of the matter, regardless of whether that truth happens to agree with our beliefs and values.
Indeed. But you personally chose to eschew science in favor politics. The two statements of yours that I quoted are contradictory. Why are you promoting strawmen, ad hominems, and politics over science, if you believe that science needs to operate effectively? Your political biases work against that goal.
No - he's saying that if you have an AGENDA, be open and up front about it so that people can determine for themselves if it's the data or the political beliefs speaking.
No, that's not what he's saying. That's what he wants you to believe he is saying. He really means something along the lines of "burn the witch!"
Why would anyone need to know a scientist's political agenda to prove or disprove the data? the science speaks for itself.
I am now basically convinced that only people from an engineering field should be allowed to draft laws.
Yeah, that'll work out really well.
But politicians are, in general, too stupid to understand that.
I think it takes an even more special breed of stupidity to think that only engineers should formulate laws. Because engineering and human interaction have soooo much in common.
It was only a matter of time before someone pulled the trigger because you cant have two major companies, with 2 sets of shareholders co-existing for very long.
So, it's only possible to have one major company in the whole world??
Suffice it to say that ZFS is a resource hungry file system with many features that are very helpful on Servers, but would be inefficient on Client systems.
Why did you capitalize the words 'client' and 'servers'? They are just normal nouns, they should not be capitalized.
Also, I am not a big fan of customized GUI:s for crucial applications like a web browser. We should be able to use Windows ClearType instead of the por
Well, firstly, there appears to be some bug with the Safari beta, possibly interacting with your Windows installation.
But Cleartype? Man, that sucks. The worst thing about web browsing on Windows is that text looks like shit. It would be nice to have a Windows browser that does decent text display. This is a huge problem where I work - where web pages are often viewed on a data projector screen for a large audience. Some projectors are hooked up to a Mac, some hooked up to a Windows machine. The output from Windows machines is uniformly terrible - which makes me wonder why they even bother using Windows on machines that drive projectors. In contrast, the Mac web browsers look great. So, if Safari on Windows (if it works) hopefully will provide a way to have a decent way of rendering web pages on large screens, and help us escape the misery of Cleartype and Internet Explorer.
Seeing as Safari is based on the Open Source webkit, then by reporting to Apple, you might also be contributing to the Open Source community, and having Apple developers do the work.
I'll assume you missed this part of my post or, more likely, chose to ignore it. Whatever.
No, I just wanted to elaborate on it, to take the questions further.
How would atheists feel if the government funded artists whose work was extremely pro-religious in nature, or anti-atheist?
Happens all the time, yet you don't see much protest. Certainly not the vilification heaped on Mapplethorpe and Serrano.
one does not generally dip portraits of loved ones or those to whom one feels neutral in urine for fun or to show respect.
But, isn't urine a blessed creation of God?
Religion and art share a long history as well, and a great many works will undoubtedly reference religion in ways that many people on both sides may be uncomfortable with - especially when they find out they're footing the bill.
Indeed. But I think it's generally the "anti-art" zealots who are unaware of these complexities and paint eveything as black-and-white. I think artists, and art appreciators, by their nature can see these nuances.
You certainly missing the point if think the protest was about publicly-funded art only.
No, I don't. I think it's fairly obvious from my responses that I don't think it's about publicly funded art at all, and rather that it is about shutting down art that people find offensive to their religious sensibilities.
I sure you can see the difference between comparing protests of cartoons of Mohammad to protest of obscene shock art using public funds.
No, I can't. They are both about religious zealots trying to shut down speech they disagree with.
If an "artist" wants to create a nativity scene out of his own collected shit then well more power to him, just do it on his own dime.
Well, Serrano sis create Piss Christ on his own dime. The only public funding involved was in the staging of an exhibition of his work - not the creation of it.
If it is really about separation of church and state, then why are these protestors not protesting the way prayers are held in congress or the White House, or how the President constantly promotes Christianity on the public dime? Why not protests about the public exhibition of pro-religous art?
If the comparison in the grandparent post was between the Da Vinci code movie complaints and the Mohammad cartoons - that would be a fair comparison.
I think the Mohammed comparison is totally fair and valid. It's the exact same thing driving these religious extremists from either religion. They don't give a shit about efficiently spent taxes. They just want to stop "heathen" art.
But might I suggest your insistence on pointing this out also feels tacked-on because it's clear you dislike this group?
That's really beside the point. It is tacked-on, to try to appeal to those outside their religious base. I don't think I'm being inconsistent, because I hate anything that tries to interfere with artistic expression and freedom of speech.
Because it's a cross and crosses bring up religious issues in people.
A vat of urine is a cross? I'm not following. That's what I was replying to, not Piss Christ.
Some in one way, some in another. And it's completely and easily avoidable with very few consequences by removing things with clear religious connotations.
It's not easily avoidable. Nearly everything can have religious connotations. A cow is a sacred symbol to Hindus. A kangaroo has religious importance to aborigines. A plate of lasagna has religious significance to pastafarians. Wine has religous significance to Catholics.
So, how is it possible to avoid symbology that may be interpreted as religious in nature?
It was religious in nature. We try not to do that here.
So, why didn't they protest when other pro-religious painters were exhibited? And if it is about separation of church and state, then why is it that the same people who protested Piss Christ are the same types that lobby to have nativity scenes and the Ten Commandments shown on public grounds, and teaching of religion in schools?
1. They didn't like it.
2. It was religious in nature.
3. It was publicly funded.
It may have been a comment on religion, but it wasn't an endorsement or "establishment" of religion. But mostly, I simply don't believe that they cared about it being publicly funded. Nor do I believe the religious nature would have bothered them if it were pro-religious.
But I don't think they got off their tuff until #1 cropped up. I certainly don't bother to protest things I know the government is doing that are stupid
And that is what totally undermines their credibility, and makes it seems like the "taxpayer money" thing is just a tacked-on justification, not the real root of the issue.
Hey, should it remain instead if they erect a giant vat of urine around it and call it art? I don't think so.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, I believe it when I hear it - but this is obviously disingenuous trolling. I'm not sure what makes you so eager to take him at face value.
What it *does* have to do with is eliminating any bias in how it's PRESENTED.How is it possible to totally eliminate bias?
To a fellow scientist, maybeThis makes even less sense - you are arguing that people who can't understand the science should just blindly let their political biases influence them, rather than the evidence? Worse, what if their science has nothing to do with the personal political biases of the scientist? Many scientists present data and findings which are in opposition to their personal beliefs. How would judging them by their political beliefs make any sense? You are making the assumption that all scientists manipulate their findings to follow their political beliefs.
(Voices in unison): Hi Anonymous Coward!
I don't hink anybody needs any ASCII porn.
Men? It's just that men tend to impulse buy things like gadgets and alcohol. As for magazines, I think many women actually plan to buy those magazines every week, rather than it being an "impulse" as such.
Way to miss the point entriely, dipshit.
So, you used to believe in something that was supported by scientific evidence, until you made up a strawman and a stereotype, so now you don't believe in it anymore? Tell me - who is it that is calling for Nuremberg style trials?
The science needs to be free to operate carefully and efficiently, regardless of whether it's finding evidence for or against AGW. The business of science is to discover the truth of the matter, regardless of whether that truth happens to agree with our beliefs and values.Indeed. But you personally chose to eschew science in favor politics. The two statements of yours that I quoted are contradictory. Why are you promoting strawmen, ad hominems, and politics over science, if you believe that science needs to operate effectively? Your political biases work against that goal.
No, that's not what he's saying. That's what he wants you to believe he is saying. He really means something along the lines of "burn the witch!"
Why would anyone need to know a scientist's political agenda to prove or disprove the data? the science speaks for itself.
Yeah, that'll work out really well.
But politicians are, in general, too stupid to understand that.I think it takes an even more special breed of stupidity to think that only engineers should formulate laws. Because engineering and human interaction have soooo much in common.
Even if it means imposing the indecent "indecency regulations" on cable channels?
And what if it means the channels your family likes are no longer available at all, because they were only sustainable in package form?
Wasn't the grandparent poster talking abou "cool" stuff, not "successful" stuff? Usually the coolest things aren't popular or successful.
So, it's only possible to have one major company in the whole world??
Did they copy Tiger or something?
Even the seafaring type of pirate doesn't have a capital 'p.' It's just a regular noun, not a proper one.
Why did you capitalize the words 'client' and 'servers'? They are just normal nouns, they should not be capitalized.
So, what's the downside?
??? Evidence?
American cops seem worse than those in many other places. Better than the worst places, but hardly the best, as you imply.
Maybe, but what exactly is the advantage of the horrible skinny, pixelated standard font of Internet Explorer?
Well, firstly, there appears to be some bug with the Safari beta, possibly interacting with your Windows installation.
But Cleartype? Man, that sucks. The worst thing about web browsing on Windows is that text looks like shit. It would be nice to have a Windows browser that does decent text display. This is a huge problem where I work - where web pages are often viewed on a data projector screen for a large audience. Some projectors are hooked up to a Mac, some hooked up to a Windows machine. The output from Windows machines is uniformly terrible - which makes me wonder why they even bother using Windows on machines that drive projectors. In contrast, the Mac web browsers look great. So, if Safari on Windows (if it works) hopefully will provide a way to have a decent way of rendering web pages on large screens, and help us escape the misery of Cleartype and Internet Explorer.
Seeing as Safari is based on the Open Source webkit, then by reporting to Apple, you might also be contributing to the Open Source community, and having Apple developers do the work.
No, I just wanted to elaborate on it, to take the questions further.
How would atheists feel if the government funded artists whose work was extremely pro-religious in nature, or anti-atheist?Happens all the time, yet you don't see much protest. Certainly not the vilification heaped on Mapplethorpe and Serrano.
one does not generally dip portraits of loved ones or those to whom one feels neutral in urine for fun or to show respect.But, isn't urine a blessed creation of God?
Religion and art share a long history as well, and a great many works will undoubtedly reference religion in ways that many people on both sides may be uncomfortable with - especially when they find out they're footing the bill.Indeed. But I think it's generally the "anti-art" zealots who are unaware of these complexities and paint eveything as black-and-white. I think artists, and art appreciators, by their nature can see these nuances.
No, I don't. I think it's fairly obvious from my responses that I don't think it's about publicly funded art at all, and rather that it is about shutting down art that people find offensive to their religious sensibilities.
I sure you can see the difference between comparing protests of cartoons of Mohammad to protest of obscene shock art using public funds.No, I can't. They are both about religious zealots trying to shut down speech they disagree with.
If an "artist" wants to create a nativity scene out of his own collected shit then well more power to him, just do it on his own dime.Well, Serrano sis create Piss Christ on his own dime. The only public funding involved was in the staging of an exhibition of his work - not the creation of it.
If it is really about separation of church and state, then why are these protestors not protesting the way prayers are held in congress or the White House, or how the President constantly promotes Christianity on the public dime? Why not protests about the public exhibition of pro-religous art?
If the comparison in the grandparent post was between the Da Vinci code movie complaints and the Mohammad cartoons - that would be a fair comparison.I think the Mohammed comparison is totally fair and valid. It's the exact same thing driving these religious extremists from either religion. They don't give a shit about efficiently spent taxes. They just want to stop "heathen" art.
... it still doesn't make the fact that the government shouldn't be in the business of propagating things with clear religious symbols on them.That's not a "fact," it's an opinion.
That's really beside the point. It is tacked-on, to try to appeal to those outside their religious base. I don't think I'm being inconsistent, because I hate anything that tries to interfere with artistic expression and freedom of speech.
Because it's a cross and crosses bring up religious issues in people.A vat of urine is a cross? I'm not following. That's what I was replying to, not Piss Christ.
Some in one way, some in another. And it's completely and easily avoidable with very few consequences by removing things with clear religious connotations.It's not easily avoidable. Nearly everything can have religious connotations. A cow is a sacred symbol to Hindus. A kangaroo has religious importance to aborigines. A plate of lasagna has religious significance to pastafarians. Wine has religous significance to Catholics.
So, how is it possible to avoid symbology that may be interpreted as religious in nature?
Correct, so what's wrong with that definition?
The term is nowadays used for a form of content distribution that's based on using end-user-owned, non-specialised machines working collectively.If they want it to mean that, then why not use a term that actually specifies that, rather than something vague?
What you're referring to is a client-server model.. Usually considered as more or less the opposite of a P2P model.But then isn't P2P also a client-server model, just with lots of different servers and clients?
So, why didn't they protest when other pro-religious painters were exhibited? And if it is about separation of church and state, then why is it that the same people who protested Piss Christ are the same types that lobby to have nativity scenes and the Ten Commandments shown on public grounds, and teaching of religion in schools?
1. They didn't like it. 2. It was religious in nature. 3. It was publicly funded.It may have been a comment on religion, but it wasn't an endorsement or "establishment" of religion. But mostly, I simply don't believe that they cared about it being publicly funded. Nor do I believe the religious nature would have bothered them if it were pro-religious.
But I don't think they got off their tuff until #1 cropped up. I certainly don't bother to protest things I know the government is doing that are stupidAnd that is what totally undermines their credibility, and makes it seems like the "taxpayer money" thing is just a tacked-on justification, not the real root of the issue.
Hey, should it remain instead if they erect a giant vat of urine around it and call it art? I don't think so.Why not?